Working from the 2006 catalogue, start at page one and enter the weight name in search. There is probably on hit, possibly more if several colours. All data/images given should match the catalogue and nothing in the catalogue should be missing. There could well be Magnum/Medium/miniatures not indicated, incorrect designer attribution etcetera. However I have identified at least one weight that Caithness attribute to the wrong year/designer. Any conflicts between different catalogues and Charlton or other sources are noted in the text for each weight. It is a time consuming task... mind you preparing and adding the 1500 images plus 800+ thumbnails and descriptions has been too :shock:

There are some items released in either autumn (fall) 2004 and 2005 that are still undated. My rule is nothing goes in without affirmation of the data.

I have switched to the glassware now, which is proving a much more challenging task then the weights. But I have come to recognise this particular task as an important foundation in the Scotland's Glass project.

The catalogues of other glassmakers will be added too, I have many of the images for Perthshire Paperweights prepared too. But I do need to attract other researchers to work on the project, the software allows others to work on the databases.

Frank,I would dearly love to help, but I do not have any catalogues.If you do not have any volunteers, but can send me the catalogues, which of course I would return at my own cost, I would be more than prepared to offer my assistance.

Logged

Enjoying being in the Midlands.......some people are just amazing....xx

Frank: I hate to seem dense, but I'm still unclear on what's expected. Are we to have catalogues in our possession? What do we proof against? The material you have posted on the web? The only thing Caithness I have, aside from some paperweights, is the first edition of the Charlton book, and that book is error-filled in and of itself. Maybe I'm missing something in your explanation and in viewing your website. It stikes me that using the Charlton book, first edition, wouldn't be 100% beneficial because that book has mistakes in it - from typographical errors to flat-out misinformation and omissions. It simply not that reliable a volume. Thanks.

Knowledge is not needed just checking that the data I have typed in matches the catalogue. I have left dates undefined where it is not clear that it is new line, although I think all the 2006 dates are confirmed.

Some time the errors are obvious as someone told me this morning, four items were listed as limited editions but were in fact unlimited (corrected).

Other errors could be similar choice of category but most likely, wrong designer, incorrect edition quantity.

Hi Wrightoutlook,

It is a task that does need access to the original catalogues, I am mostly working from contributed scans and can pass those on to a proofreader. The proofreading needs to work backwards as that should be easiest to ensure comprehensive coverage before proofing. I have some work to do to complete 2005 yet. I am also getting other items submitted but it makes sense to get as much catalogue data in first and then follow up with photographs of the weights, glassware etc. This will make it much easier to identify the material that appear in none of the Caithness catalogues, nor in Charlton etc.

Overall it is looking to be an exciting project and there is probably less than a tenth of the production on-line so far.